Councillors clash
COUNCILLORS have clashed over integrity and “assumptions made” of people living in affordable homes.
Coley Farm was refused by the council’s western area planning committee in 2017, owing to the increase in traffic, concerns over flooding and the impact on the landscape.
As the refusal went against council policy, through it being allocated as a preferred site, it was passed to the district planning committee.
The vote was tied at five votes for and five votes against, and committee chairwoman Hilary Cole used her deciding vote to approve the application.
Mrs Cole, who at the time represented Chieveley, but now represents Chieveley and Cold Ash, the parish where Coley Farm lies, abstained from the vote at the meeting when the plans were refused.
The issue was raised in last Wednesday’s meeting by Garth Simpson (Con, Chieveley and Cold Ash) and committee vicechairman Tony Vickers (Lib Dem, Wash Common).
Mr Vickers said: “I hope councillor Cole realises that a large part of the blame for having this meeting here tonight is that she used her casting vote to pass this one through.”
He said he would never have voted for the application had he been a councillor at the time.
Asking Mr Vickers to withdraw his comment, Mrs Cole said: “I take grave exception to councillor Simpson and councillor Vickers’ comments about my casting vote because I think it questions my integrity and I think that is uncalled for.”
In response, Mr Vickers said:
“If she took it as impugning her integrity that was not the intention… she’s free to use her vote how she feels and her judgment is her judgment, but this seems to have decided the situation and is why we are where we are and unable to refuse it.”
Earlier in the meeting, Mr Vickers had referenced the traffic modelling computer assessment of the development’s impact on local roads.
Mr Vickers said the model used a lower number of vehicle trips for people in affordable housing and questioned whether the topography of 1/12 gradient hill of Coley Farm had been factored in.
He added: “It’s assuming that people in affordable housing can’t afford cars, so they walk and they bike, poor souls.”
Mrs Cole referenced Mr Vickers’ comments, saying: “Assumptions have been made about people living in affordable housing that they can’t afford cars and I think that’s an extremely wrong assumption, and the indication is that people who live in affordable housing are in some way poor and disenfranchised.
“That’s not true and I think that is a very unfair remark about this development.”
Mr Vickers said he had been quoting the traffic assessment.
He added: “I can’t think of any other reason why that assumption should be made.
“That very fact has been used by the applicant to justify the lower number of vehicles, as I understand it.
“It’s certainly not me assuming that people in affordable housing can’t afford cars, that to me must be the reason why they are assumed to conduct fewer vehicle journeys.
“Either that or they are assumed to be unemployed, which is not the case, but to me there is nowhere in the Newbury settlement area that is so high up from facilities.
“This is an appalling site to have chosen for housing of this density with affordable housing on it.
“It should have been a much lower density with larger houses with people who can afford at least two cars.”
Mr Simpson agreed that Coley Farm was “probably the worst” area around Newbury to build 75 homes. He said the council accepting it as a preferred site for 75 homes was a mistake, resulting in green policies being compromised.
He said: “Morally, I think the transport statement was very, very bad. I proved it at the time when the application was lost in 2017.
“I regard this as something that should be stopped. I think it’s morally reprehensible. I recommend it going to appeal.”